Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1963

Vol. 202 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—Social Welfare (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy O'Sullivan.)

There are just a few other points to which I want to refer. Deputy Kyne referred to the fact that the standard of our social welfare payments is low compared with a number of other countries. It is true that our social welfare payments are not as high as would be considered desirable, but they are not as bad as Deputies seem to take pleasure in saying they are. The Government have shown a keen awareness of the fact that there is need for an improvement in our social welfare standard, and practically every year some improvement has been made. It is the declared policy of the Government to effect further improvements.

When the lowness of our social welfare payments is criticised, it is never mentioned that the proportion of the State's contribution to insurance benefits in this country is higher than it is in any other country anyone can mention. The aim here is that the State should pay 33? per cent of the total cost of the insurance benefits, but in actual fact, over the years, the percentage has worked out considerably higher than that.

I have here the figures from 1953 to 1961-62. Over that period, the average State contribution has been 38.5 per cent. One year it went as high as 43.6 per cent and it is still considerably higher than the 33? per cent at which we aim. That compares very favourably with the position in any other country of which I am aware. In Great Britain, the average contribution of the Exchequer towards social insurance for the years 1954-55 to 1960-61 was 16 per cent, whereas here it was almost 40 per cent. A fact that is never referred to is that the State here plays a much more important and direct part in providing money for social insurance schemes.

Deputy Corish referred to seasonal fishermen and share fishermen in relation to unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. That question is under examination at the moment. I must agree that when a person earns practically his total income for the year over a comparatively small period of the year, it is rather harsh to assess that income in the same way as an income earned weekly. That question is being looked into, as is also the matter of making share fishermen eligible for unemployment benefit.

Deputy Corish also referred to the reports of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the alleged long delay in dealing with those reports. While it is true, as he says, that it is a long time since the commission was set up, it really is not such a long time since the reports became available. In fact, printed copies were circulated only in February, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, I have now completed my examination of the reports and I hope to be in a position to indicate what the Government's proposals are in the reasonably near future. I suppose it would be too optimistic to say that there is any prospect of the legislation being ready in this session. It is likely that there will be legislation. It will probably take some time to prepare it.

In the meantime, I am aware that the maximum amount that can be paid by way of workmen's compensation is £4 10s. and that this does result in hardship. When the Government's decisions with regard to the future of workmen's compensation have been decided upon, it may, if it appears that the necessary legislation will be protracted, be necessary to decide on certain interim changes in the scheme which could be made more rapidly. I should like to avoid that, if at all possible, because if you make interim changes in the amount of compensation to be paid, they will obviously give rise to changes in the premiums to be paid. However, if the legislation is likely to be very protracted, we may have to consider doing that.

Deputy Kyne referred to the form of application for blind pension. He seemed to imply that because that application form did not indicate that medical evidence would be necessary, there was a long delay. My information is that, immediately on receipt of the application, if it is found that the answers to the questions on the application form indicate that the person is otherwise qualified for the receipt of a blind pension, a further form is sent out immediately to the person on which he or she submits a report from some doctor in connection with his or her eyesight.

Is that a new regulation?

No. That goes out straight away. Three questions are asked which are necessary to establish whether or not the person is otherwise qualified: how long he or she has resided in Ireland since the age of 10 years; if he or she is unable to do work for which eyesight is essential; and if he or she is able to carry out his or her ordinary occupation. It is felt a person should reply to these questions before going to the expense of getting a medical report. I think there has been some delay in getting the Department's medical officer to verify certain cases but that was due to the retirement of one doctor and to a certain amount of delay in appointing his successor.

Deputy Corish asked about the proportion of the State's contribution to the cost of the social insurance schemes. He inquired whether it is still 33? per cent. In fact, it is quite considerably more than 33? per cent. That is due, at least partly, to the fact that while the benefits for agricultural workers are the same as those for other workers, the rates of contribution are smaller. I do not know exactly how much that would amount to in the year but I feel that the amount by which the contributions from agricultural workers falls short of what it would be if they were charged at the same rate as those for other workers should possibly be included in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture because it is a subvention towards agriculture.

Deputy Corish also asked what percentage of total tax revenue represented expenditure on social welfare. My estimate is that social welfare expenditure represents 20.1 per cent of total tax revenue.

The question of long delays on appeals was mentioned. The position in that regard has been very much improved lately. There are not excessive delays at the moment in dealing with appeals. If there are any cases which Deputies have in mind, I shall always be pleased to investigate them and to see what has given rise to delay. There is usually a fairly good reason. However, if I find there is any unreasonable delay, I shall have the matter rectified.

Will the Minister comment on the desirability of having old age contributory and non-contributory pensions paid at 65 rather than at 70, as at present? There is a growing volume of opinion in favour of that being done.

Would the Minister do that by administrative act? That would require legislation.

Would he comment on it?

Comment is not allowed on the Estimate.

I am sorry.

Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration" put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share